partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Andrew George

   Fly-tipping

   Local authorities will be looking to the Environment Agency to set standards as far as enforcement action is concerned. Trevoole Moor in my constituency is the fifth largest illegal dump in the country, affecting a nature reserve, but the Environment Agency has decided not to take enforcement action. When I discussed this with the Environment Agency, it said that it deals with these matters on a case-by-case basis. Will the Minister ensure that the guidance the Environment Agency uses is published, so that we can properly understand where and why it makes these decisions?

   Hansard source
2. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

   I beg to move amendment 81, in clause 23, page 21, line 33, at end insert— “(3A) Subject to subsection (3B), where the Secretary of State did not make a decision on a person’s protection claim within 180 days of the making of the protection claim, any sums to be paid by the person under subsection (3) must be reduced by 20% for every period of 30 days that elapsed before a decision on the person’s protection claim was made. (3B) Subsection 3A does not apply where a decision on the protection claim was not made within 180 days of the claim being made due to the actions of the applicant. (3C) For the purposes of subsection (3A), ‘protection claim’ has the same meaning as in section 82(2)(a) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.” This amendment would reduce the level of payments required from a person by 20% for every 30 days longer than six months that passed before a decision was made on the person’s asylum claim.

   Hansard source
3. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

   It is pleasure to have you back in the Chair, Mrs Barker. I hope my voice holds out, as I will speak at some length on these amendments. The Committee has reached the part about charging refugees for the support that they receive, so I want to make some points about my overall discomfort with these proposals. Requiring retrospective payments from refugees after they have secured the right to stay is completely wrong. Many organisations, including the Refugee Council, are rightly calling the proposal a refugee tax, because it is a tax for successfully claiming asylum, and it breaks our commitments under the convention. The proposals do not guard against destitution, so I believe that they also breach article 25 of the universal declaration of human rights—my favourite article—which states: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.” That absolutely applies to refugees. Local authorities have told us that the requirements will push more families into poverty and will place a greater strain on family support services, advice services, crisis response services and housing services at the local authority level, for which duties towards children will remain. I am not certain that the Government have properly considered the impacts.

   Hansard source
4. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

   One of my amendments would raise the level for repayments beyond mere destitution, which is wise in the circumstances, given some of the feedback we have received from support services, charities and local authorities. The clause will also entrench inequality among refugees. Not all refugees applying for asylum in this country require support; some have managed to flee the circumstances that led to their needing asylum with some resources. In her letter responding to questions in the oral sessions, the Minister confirmed that “around two in every five people awaiting an initial decision on their claim were in Home Office provided accommodation”. She also said that some of them may have received accommodation in the past, but that figure is not a high proportion of refugees. The clause therefore targets the most vulnerable—those without the means to support themselves—in an already vulnerable population. The clause will apply only to those who use Home Office accommodation, but, given the randomness of the circumstances in which people become refugees, many come with skills from previous employment—jobs that have been torn away from them—and would be able to support themselves if they were simply allowed to work, as I propose in my new clause 24, which we will debate later. I believe the whole clause needs to go, but I have also tabled targeted amendments with constructive measures to mitigate its impact. Amendment 81 would reduce payments if the Home Office’s decisions are delayed. At the moment, the main driver of cost in asylum support is delayed decision making, and sometimes poor-quality initial decisions leading to appeals. The Bill reflects neither that nor the detrimental impact that delayed decisions can have on people’s ability to find employment and thus make repayments. The amendment would require that, once someone has been awaiting a decision for longer than six months, or 180 days, the charge intended to be levied against them—the refugee tax—would decrease by 20% for every further 30 days that passed. Amendment 81 is only fair, given that, according to the Home Secretary, the aim of part 4 of the Bill is partly to tackle the cost of asylum support. The Home Secretary must recognise that the drivers of those costs are delays in decision making and poor decisions. How long it takes to process a claim is not up to the individual, and delayed decisions will have a detrimental impact on their ability to find employment, integrate and make repayments. In some professions, continued practice is a condition of continued recognition in that role, so delays could have disruptive consequences on people’s ability to earn. The reduction in payments that the amendment proposes would also reflect those kinds of impacts.

   Hansard source
5. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

   I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. The evidence we have heard about the impact on people’s ability to integrate and on community cohesion has been clear. Amendment 81 in particular would be a good measure because it would incentivise the Home Office to reduce those costs and make decisions on time. It would also mean that people kept in the system for longer than necessary are not unfairly penalised for overly long decisions. That is the focus of the amendment. If the asylum claim took longer than six months because of the actions of the applicant, this would not apply—the amendment covers that as well. On my amendment 76, as mentioned earlier, if the Government decide to go ahead with the payments, they cannot guard against destitution with their requirement. Poverty ought to be the defining measure. That would allay a lot of the fears of local authorities, which are nevertheless obliged to deal with the consequences of people being in poverty. It would also save money, reduce those impacts and be much clearer about what would happen. People are fearful that the word “destitution” is a very low bar. As defined in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, someone is destitute if they do “not have adequate accommodation or any means of obtaining it”, or if they have “adequate accommodation or the means of obtaining it, but cannot meet his other essential living needs.” The Government’s definition of “essential living needs”, as set out in the Asylum Support Regulations 2000, is extremely minimal. As the Bill is drafted, individuals or families could be required to pay this charge, regardless of whether they are deemed to be in poverty, or even deep material poverty, if we are to use those definitions.

   Hansard source
6. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

   The evidence I have comes from local authorities that have given evidence to the Committee and are very worried that their obligations will be extended by this Bill. People will be driven into poverty by the Home Office taking this money away from the overall system in the local area. It would be useful if the Home Office told us where the money will be spent in order to alleviate that. I am not sure that the Bill sets out where the repayments are going to go, but the implication is that they will go to the Home Office, not to local authorities. Amendment 76 would change the provision related to the repayment of asylum support so that people would not be required to make payments if doing so would leave them or their household impoverished. It also defines impoverishment as having an equivalised net income of less than 60% of the median—a fairly normal definition of poverty that is also the Government’s own definition for whether a household is low income. Clearly, it is the Government’s intention to provide safeguards to ensure that people are not made destitute. This amendment would strengthen that safeguard on the face of the Bill so that people who fled war and have been granted protection are not plunged into deeper poverty, just as they are starting the process of rebuilding their lives and integrating into communities. Finally, my amendment 79 is fairly pragmatic. It sets out that payments may not exceed the actual cost of supporting an individual. Currently, there is no link in the Bill between the level of the charge and the cost of support provided to someone. I would like to hear what the Government’s intentions are in setting out those charges. There is a broad power in the Bill and it would come through regulations. However, we need reassurance that no one could face a charge higher than the cost of the actual support they have received. On Second Reading, the Home Secretary said that clause 23 creates a power “that requires those who have received taxpayer-funded support to pay back a portion when they can.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 13 July 2026; c. 678.] The implication is clearly that this should not exceed the cost of being supported. Government amendment 124 would allow the Home Secretary to reduce the payments owed. It would be useful to hear more detail from the Minister about the criteria for applying the power to reduce the payments and about the cases in which they would expect the amounts people owed to be reduced. If the Government plan on reducing them, in line with the amendment, would they consider putting that on the face of the Bill?

   Hansard source
7. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

   That is an entirely fair point. There has been a focus on the lowest-possible-cost accommodation, and it is only right that people can stay closer to where they may have a connection and all the other considerations. It is important that those figures are just the current average. Overall, given the gravity of the impacts and the concerns from local authorities and many of my constituents about the problems, I want to see answers from the Minister on the amendments that would mitigate the impacts. I will be pressing my amendments to a vote if I do not hear good answers, and I will be opposing clause 23.

   Hansard source
8. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

   I take the hon. Lady’s point that people who have claimed asylum should be regarded as akin to those here on work visas. However, does she understand the points in my amendments about how different groups of asylum seekers are being treated differently? People who needed accommodation due to poverty will be asked to pay back, while those who did not need accommodation, due to not being in poverty, are not. That distinction, which sets different asylum seeker groups against each other, is unhelpful.

   Hansard source
9. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

   For clarity, if this is akin to those on work visas, why are the Government proposing that only those asylum seekers who were here in poverty should pay back those contributions? Why not have a more redistributive approach and also charge the most well-off people seeking asylum, or make it more progressive?

   Hansard source
10. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source
11. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Tenth sitting)

    It is very good to have you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Twigg. From the discussions we have had today, I think it is clear what a mess the proposals in clauses 23 and 24 are. If it is not an itemised recovery of costs, it is a refugee tax—worse, it has become clear that is only a poor refugee tax. As such, the philosophical basis for the proposals is broken. The Government have set a terribly high bar for being excused, and they are not seeking any payment from successful refugees who have the means to support themselves while they wait for a decision. That is despite the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes likening the proposal to NHS surcharges for those on work visas, to which the Minister also referred. The Government have been clear that they are setting a flat charge rate, but they will not apply it to all asylum seekers. Why not? If one accepts the premise of the charge—I do not—would that not be fairer across the board? The Government propose to charge it only to those people who are destitute when they arrive here. This will do much harm to these people’s ability to settle in the future. Why would the Government drive them into poverty for extended periods and cause that kind of problem? It seems unfair to impose this on people. The Government have introduced this in clause 23, while amendment 141, tabled by the Conservatives, tries to codify it further. In my view, any kind of refugee tax should not be an additional barrier to stability. These clauses are reckless, unfair, cruel and irrational. Without my amendments, they become even worse. I will seek to divide the Committee on them. Question put, That the amendment be made.

    Hansard source
12. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 77, in clause 23, page 22, line 9, leave out “18 at all times” and insert “21 at any time”. This amendment would extend the exemption for repaying asylum support from any person who was under the age of 18 at all times they were in receipt of support to any person who was under the age of 21 at any time they were in receipt of support.

    Hansard source
13. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I have four amendments in this group, and I will speak as briefly as I can about each of them. They are in the spirit of trying to improve the clauses even though I oppose them in principle. Amendment 77 seeks to strengthen the exemption on children and increase the age to 21. As the explanatory statement says, it would “extend the exemption for repaying asylum support from any person who was under the age of 18 at all times they were in receipt of support to any person who was under the age of 21 at any time they were in receipt of support.” It is welcome that the Government have already acknowledged that children should not be counted within this policy, including that parents should not have to pay £10,000 for any dependants who are children. However, there are two concerns that this amendment is seeking to address. First, on the face of the Bill, an individual has to be: “under 18 at all times at which they received asylum support” That implies that if someone turns 18 the day before they are granted status, they would still be liable for the full payment of up to £10,000, which the Government have confirmed they want to charge at a flat rate. That seems particularly unfair, especially when one considers that applicants have no control over how long it will take for their application to be processed. Additionally, the Bill does not reflect that when someone turns 18, they are still a young person just starting their adult life. Through measures announced elsewhere, such as the work and study protection framework, the Government have made it clear that they want people to be encouraged into study and work opportunities. It therefore seems both harsh and counterproductive to be giving a young person thousands of pounds of debt when they are taking their very first steps in building a new life in a new country. The change in amendment 77 would therefore better protect children and young people who have gone through the asylum system and allow them to have the best start at rebuilding their lives in the UK. Amendment 78 adds further exemptions to those that the Government have outlined. The only exemption on the face of the Bill is currently for children who are under 18, although more amendments could be added through regulations. I am happy for amendment 78 to be a probing amendment, provided that the Government are prepared to give some clarity on further exemptions that they might be prepared to add.

    Hansard source
14. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Tenth sitting)

    Does the hon. Member have any insight into the gap that I think the Minister left in the discussion on the last group, between claims that repayments will be affordable and what it says in the Bill, which is that it will only avoid destitution? Does the hon. Member agree that there is a gap between those two definitions?

    Hansard source
15. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I have spoken quite a lot about my overall position on these clauses, but I would like to say a little more about the fact that clause 23 gives the Home Secretary the power to require these unfair payments from a minority of asylum seekers who are destitute when they arrive here. The Minister needs to consider the lack of safe routes and the extent to which people wanting to claim asylum here end up more destitute as they are exploited the entire way by the kind of organised criminals that are currently running the only routes into this country. We need to see much more detail than is on the face of the Bill about how the system will work. I essentially wish to speak in support of amendment 140, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire. He makes a good point. On Second Reading, the Home Secretary promised that Parliament would have the opportunity to see draft regulations, but we have not seen them yet. The Committee is being asked to assess and approve a system when we are not able to scrutinise the details. We deserve to see more of them now. They are not minor details. We have already spoken about the fact that £10,000 is the amount that the Government are talking about, but that is not on the face of the Bill, and neither is the payment threshold nor how much people will have to pay over that amount. All of that is information that we would need to assess the impact that this policy would have on individual refugees at the point they are trying to rebuild their lives, not just on the public purse, as the Opposition amendment seeks to set out. Although the Government have indicated how they might recover those payments, the detail of the Bill does not cover everything. They say it will enable the Home Office to have its own cost recovery mechanism, supported by HMRC, which will apparently play its part. How will that work, how will it sit within other parts of the Government’s core protection system, and how much will it cost? That is especially important when weighed against the fact that the policy might bring in only limited amounts and may even reduce the overall tax take from this group. Without knowledge of the decisions about the system, the Government may be proposing something that costs the public purse large amounts in cash terms, let alone in its wider impacts. I think we need to see the Government’s analysis of all this. It is also important to acknowledge that individuals claiming asylum have fled war and persecution and are not responsible for the overall cost of asylum support. That cost has grown, often as a result of policy decisions or failings of this Government and the previous one. Earlier, we discussed the difference in cost between nightly paid hotel accommodation and properly settled dispersal accommodation in genuine homes. The Government are not spending their money wisely at present, and I think Ministers are seeking to address that. Would tackling that not be more cost-effective than trying to recover money from close-to-destitute asylum seekers? The Home Secretary has also said this policy is introducing a “contributory principle”. What she ignores, however, is that refugees do contribute, and have always done so, through working, paying taxes and contributing to their local communities. In fact, on wider impacts, the refugee tax is not introducing the idea that refugees should contribute. In my view, it is making it harder for them to do so, while also harming community cohesion and integration. A policy that was truly focused on increasing refugee contributions could look at how barriers to employment can be removed, so that people can access work more easily, progress in a career and transfer their qualifications to this country. I have had casework on those matters, which are barriers to refugees contributing to society through their taxes and making the most of the skills they can bring here by accessing education and further training. That would all help the Government to address asylum support costs, but it would do so by supporting vulnerable refugees, not targeting them with this tax. Has the Minister really addressed, in any of her comments today, the facts in the letter she wrote to us at the end of the oral evidence session, which admits fully that three in five of the people currently awaiting a decision are not claiming support? Why are those people not being asked to contribute in any way, if recovering the costs from people is the most important thing to the Government? Amendment 140 gets to the heart of that: what is the balance of payments? Finally, I believe this policy is cruel. It seeks to deter people from coming to this country, and that is the key reason why it is so targeted at the most vulnerable refugees, and not at those who can pay their own way. However, will it actually work as a deterrent? In general, the Home Office already has evidence that punitive measures such as the refugee tax have little impact on where people choose to seek asylum. Furthermore, in the oral evidence session, when asked about this, the Refugee Council highlighted that people will be able to avoid these payments simply by not applying for asylum support while their application is being processed, a risk also recognised in the Home Office’s impact assessment. Although that may reduce asylum support costs, I do not think that such a result is the Government’s intention, as it will push more people seeking asylum into vulnerable situations in which they can be exploited further. Do the Government not think that policies from this and previous Governments have already done enough of that?

    Hansard source
16. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Tenth sitting)

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source
17. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Tenth sitting)

    My question is more about the revenue and its spending. We have heard from local authorities concerned that they might have higher costs as a result of the measures. Can the Minister give us any reassurance that the costs will not spill over into services that might be affected by some of the things in the impact assessment?

    Hansard source
18. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Carla Denyer

    Black History Month

    It is a pleasure to speak in today’s debate marking Black History Month, and I thank the Minister for opening the debate with a speech so powerful that it gave me the chills. I do not think that is because I might have caught a cold off her on Monday, although that may be the case. In my maiden speech, I talked about how the story of my home city, Bristol, cannot be disentangled from the UK’s shameful and immoral history of colonialism and slavery. That is a history that we cannot and must not turn away from. Bristol merchants financed over 2,000 slaving voyages between 1698 and 1807. These ships carried over 500,000 enslaved Africans from Africa to face slave labour in the Americas. This shameful trade is an ongoing stain, and it is why my party backs slavery reparations. Since 2020, we have supported the idea of a UK Government-backed all-party parliamentary commission of inquiry for truth and reparatory justice, aligned with the United Nations frameworks, to address the legacy of the transatlantic trade in enslaved Africans and colonialism. I am proud to say that my city also backs that call following a motion brought by my former colleague, Green Councillor Cleo Lake, five years ago. This is work that I hope to continue to push on as a member of the all-party parliamentary group for Afrikan reparations. The UN’s declaration earlier this year, which said that the trafficking of enslaved Africans is the “gravest crime against humanity” and called for reparations as a “concrete step towards remedying historical wrongs”, is therefore very welcome. I hope this strong UN stance will encourage the UK Government to mark Black History Month by acknowledging the inhumane crimes that Britain inflicted on African people for centuries, and the ongoing impact of those crimes on the global south today. My constituency, Bristol Central, is home to a blue plaque at the Seven Stars inn in Redcliffe that marks how Thomas Clarkson, an anti-slavery activist, together with the landlord of the Seven Stars, collected testimonies from sailors in 1787 that were used as evidence in Parliament. These statements played a role in the passing of the Slave Trade Act 1807, which eventually led to the end of the transatlantic slave trade. Fast-forwarding 150 years, we have already heard extensively today about the 1963 Bristol bus boycott, which was a landmark moment in race relations in the UK. On the same day that Martin Luther King gave his famous “I have a dream” speech in the US, the Bristol Omnibus Company agreed to end its racist hiring practices following a successful boycott campaign. As we have heard, the boycott was widely cited as a turning point for racial justice in the UK and ultimately led to the Race Relations Act 1965. Bristol’s more recent history saw 15,000 Black Lives Matter supporters gather in the city in 2020 and the toppling of a statue of Edward Colston, a 17th-century slave trader who is believed to have transported about 80,000 men, women and children from Africa to the Americas between 1672 and 1689. That statue, in its damaged state, is now displayed in a glass case in the M Shed Museum, in my constituency, where it is surrounded by some of the placards held by protesters on the day it was toppled. Bristol city council’s culture team say this about the exhibit: “This is not erasing history, this is recording history. History isn’t something that can remain static and preserved—that moment was history in action.” Those words feel particularly salient to this debate, because in celebrating those people in our communities whose contributions are all too often unseen, we are—as Cherron Inko-Tariah MBE, the editor of Black History Month UK Magazine, puts it—also writing history. We are making the history that we want recorded, and keeping it alive. To that end, I want to give a special shout-out to one of the many people making black history in Bristol today: the first lord mayor of Bristol to come from the Somali community, Councillor Yassin Mohamud. Yassin brings his experience as a refugee, his experience as a member of the black and minority ethnic community, and his work representing one of Bristol’s more deprived areas to the role of lord mayor. As he said shortly before taking up the post, his focus is on unity “to bring people together, to celebrate the diversity and strength of our city, and to ensure that every community feels recognised and valued.”

    Hansard source
19. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Carla Denyer

    Black History Month

    I will indeed. The now Lord Rees, who was the first black mayor of Bristol and one of the first in Europe, also featured in my maiden speech, and I recognise the great contribution that he made to our city. Finally, I want to highlight the campaign launched last year for Bristol to become the UK’s civil rights capital. The fact that two Members from outside Bristol have already told the story of the city’s pivotal role in British black history supports the case for that very strongly. The campaign brings together academics, business leaders and politicians, including Lord Rees. I will quote directly from one of the campaign’s lead organisers, Julz Davis. He said: “Bristol has never waited for permission to lead. This city has shown the country what change looks like. Activism has always been the lifeblood of systemic change here.” Black History Month is a much-needed chance to remember the importance of systemic change and how many people are making that change happen. To quote Cherron Inko-Tariah again: “There is still so much we do not know. So many stories waiting to be uncovered. So many names waiting to be spoken. So much history waiting to be reclaimed, recorded and shared.” That potential is very alive in this Chamber today, in my home city of Bristol and across our communities, and I look forward to continuing to work cross-party to help realise it.

    Hansard source
20. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Carla Denyer

    Black History Month

    Lord Mayor.

    Hansard source
21. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Adrian Ramsay

    Flood Preparation

    9. What steps her Department is taking to prepare communities for flooding in winter 2026-27.

    Hansard source
22. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Adrian Ramsay

    Flood Preparation

    I thank the Minister for her reply. We have already seen unprecedented climate impacts this summer, and with the super El Niño on its way, we will see threats to global weather patterns, including a forecasted colder, wetter and stormier winter for the UK. How is she working across Government to ensure that preparedness for flooding risks this winter are stepped up, to keep our communities safe?

    Hansard source
23. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Victoria Atkins

    Topical Questions

    The Conservative DEFRA team met more than 100 farmers in Berkshire this week, ahead of the Budget, to continue our two-year campaign against the family farm tax and the family business tax. One farmer told us: “I’m sat with a ticking time bomb and it’s unsurvivable for me. I would have to sell the farm to pay the bill.” That is despite the Government’s humiliating partial U-turn. With six days to go before the Budget, can the Secretary of State explain why this Labour Government are putting families through that?

    Hansard source
24. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Victoria Atkins

    Topical Questions

    I can tell the Secretary of State now that I am not on the side of this Government. While Labour was complaining about black labradors and pubs at its party conference, the Conservatives were listening to rural business owners. They are being squeezed at every turn; the cost of energy, water, heating oil, petrol and diesel, as well as food prices, and the amount of red tape and taxes, are all up under this Government. The Secretary of State may have heard of two of them: Jeremy Clarkson and Cheerful Charlie—in fact, the Secretary of State has stood up Cheerful Charlie three times. They asked a question at our party conference that I hear in market towns and villages across the country under this Government: why would anyone start a business in this country right now?

    Hansard source
25. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Tom Tugendhat

    Saudi Arabia: RAF Support

    (Urgent Question:) To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the deployment of RAF Typhoon aircraft to defend Saudi Arabia, and the extension of air-to-air refuelling support for the Saudi air operations, including those against Houthi targets in Yemen.

    Hansard source
26. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Tom Tugendhat

    Saudi Arabia: RAF Support

    Thank you for granting this UQ, Mr Speaker. I am sorry that it was necessary, as there is a long-standing convention in this place that shadow Ministers—and, in fact, spokespeople from other parties—are briefed on a Privy Council basis in order to understand what is going on before there are military deployments overseas, but that seems to have fallen out of practice. Those of us—including my friend, the hon. and gallant Minister sitting across the Dispatch Box from me—who have served in uniform and have briefed members of the Opposition should remember that we may find ourselves on the opposite Benches in a few years’ time, and it is good to get back into these habits. I will just say briefly why this is so important, and why I am asking this question and not my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), sitting beside me. This is a political decision and a political judgment. This is not purely a military deployment; it is a judgment on how to use the defensive arm of His Majesty’s Government and where it should go. It is a question that the Foreign Office is best placed to co-ordinate. The reality is that what we are getting is a parcelled-off process, and not a strategy for success. Where is, for example, the action in the United Nations? Where are the sanctions on the Houthis, who should be designated as a terrorist group? Where are the co-ordinating actions with others in the region? We have the state visit of the Sultan of Oman—one of Britain’s most important regional partners—but where are the voices co-ordinating our actions around not just Yemen, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, but the whole of the Arabian peninsula in response to Iran’s hostility? We have seen the regime in Tehran killing hundreds of thousands—perhaps even millions—of Sunni Muslims over the past half century since the poisonous creed of Khomeinism infected Tehran. This recent incident is not an isolated one; it is part of a pattern of violence. We have seen it pushing up energy prices in the United Kingdom, leaving us with our energy low and our storage short as winter approaches. Although the Jackdaw decision is the right one, it is a bit late, and it will not make a huge difference this winter, making Rosebank all the more urgent. Let me just ask a few direct questions. First, what actions have the Minister or his Cabinet colleagues taken to co-ordinate actions with allies in the region? Secondly, what support has been given to the defence of Cyprus, given Iran’s proxy Hezbollah’s attack on our bases recently? Thirdly, what plans are there to designate the Houthis as a terrorist organisation? Fourthly, what actions are planned at the UN to call out Iranian aggression, alongside its Russian and Chinese neighbours? Fifthly—[Interruption.] Last one, Mr Speaker. Fifthly, will the Secretary of State commit to giving briefings before deployments? Finally, will the Secretary of State confirm that despite his predecessor saying—

    Hansard source
27. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Tom Tugendhat

    Saudi Arabia: RAF Support

    On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I seek your guidance and advice on ensuring that the Government inform this House before military operations, and that they do not have to be dragged here with your indulgence for an urgent question when there is a clear need for this House to be able to debate the actions of His Majesty’s Government in order to support our forces? We all support our forces. I respect the Minister’s service and I am sure that he respects all those on the Opposition Benches as well.

    Hansard source
28. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Tom Tugendhat

    Retirement of the Clerk of the House

    Shame!

    Hansard source
29. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir John Whittingdale

    Wine Production

    8. What steps her Department is taking to support the wine production industry.

    Hansard source
30. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir John Whittingdale

    Wine Production

    Is the Minister aware that Essex is now a centre of English wine production, with producers such as Danbury Ridge, Missing Gate, New Hall, Crouch Valley and Crouch Ridge all producing in my constituency? A number of them also offer vineyard tours, which are an important source of revenue. Will he support WineGB’s campaign for a wine tourism relief, to reduce the excise duty on cellar-door sales?

    Hansard source
31. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir John Whittingdale

    Topical Questions

    T3. As well as producing extremely fine wines, Maldon produces excellent oysters—I would be delighted to welcome any members of the ministerial team to visit. Will the Department do more to promote the shellfish industry? In particular, will it look to introduce a specific aquaculture qualification to try to attract more apprentices into the industry?

    Hansard source
32. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir John Whittingdale

    Saudi Arabia: RAF Support

    I support the deployment of British forces in support of our Saudi Arabian allies, but, as has become clear, the distinction between “offensive” and “defensive” support is pretty fuzzy at best. Can the Minister say what assessment has been made of the possible increased threat to British nationals in the region, both civilian and military, and what is being done to meet that threat?

    Hansard source
33. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Local Government Reorganisation

    The Local Government Boundary Commission paused boundary reviews in areas affected by local government reorganisation proposals in February of last year, so the Government’s recent review of those proposals has not had any immediate practical impact. The commission will return to those boundary reviews when the reorganisation proposals are resolved.

    Hansard source
34. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Local Government Reorganisation

    I will write to my hon. Friend if there is anything to add to what I am about to say, but as he will appreciate, the delay will have a practical impact because all those waiting for such a review will have to wait rather longer. The boundary review can only review proposals for change when a new authority is legally established, which has not yet happened.

    Hansard source
35. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Jeremy Hunt

    Topical Questions

    Thank you for squeezing me in, Mr Speaker. On 7 September, Natural England submitted the legal orders for a 30.5% expansion of the Surrey Hills national landscape, which would transform biodiversity and nature protection in my area. The decision is now on the Secretary of State’s desk. When will she make that decision, and would she like to come to Surrey Hills to announce it and try out some of our fantastic local pubs?

    Hansard source
36. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Iain Duncan Smith

    Saudi Arabia: RAF Support

    I say to the Minister—I do not mean this personally—that I do not know what has happened to the Government. When they deploy British servicemen and women abroad, they should make a statement to the House, no matter what time of the day or night it is. In 1999, when Prime Minister Tony Blair deployed RAF aircraft to Montenegro, I remember the then Deputy Prime Minister coming to the Dispatch Box at about 9 pm. He knew his responsibilities. The Government have failed on this quite explicitly. Why are the Government misusing the word “defence” endlessly now, not wanting to talk about what they have to do? How do we defend against a ballistic missile once it is launched unless we attack the site that is launching it? This is nonsense. At the end of the day, we need to be honest with the British public. I am not against deployment to defend by offensive action, but surely that is more logical than pretending that personnel are there only to defend.

    Hansard source
37. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Geoffrey Cox

    NHS Maternity Services

    I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and on his indefatigable efforts on behalf of Barnstaple hospital; as he knows, although it is in his constituency, it also serves thousands of people in Torridge, which I have the honour to represent. Does he agree that the question the Minister needs to answer today is what the Government are going to do to ensure that isolated rural maternity services are resilient and can withstand the departure of a single consultant and prevent hundreds of mothers having to make a trek—in this case of 60 miles to Exeter, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well—to give birth. We need a policy that looks closely at how isolated rural maternity units can have built-in resilience, and trusts must have a duty to ensure it.

    Hansard source
38. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Desmond Swayne

    Equitable Life Policyholders: Compensation

    On the issue of stalwart supporters, the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) has been a magnificent supporter. I have come along to these debates for several years, and what I am looking for is at least some prospect of a result, because we have done this year in, year out. I have affected constituents, and I still support them, but what we need from the Minister is at least some sign that we are not flogging a dead horse.

    Hansard source
39. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Christopher Chope

    Equitable Life Policyholders: Compensation

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate. Does he agree that one of the fundamental issues is who regulates the regulators? When the regulators failed in this case, ultimately the ombudsman tried to regulate the regulators, but the regulators were too stubborn to accept the ombudsman’s recommendations. So who is going to regulate the regulators?

    Hansard source
40. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Christopher Chope

    Equitable Life Policyholders: Compensation

    Let us put the issue in context. The headline today is that we now have £3 trillion of national debt, which represents an increase of £1 trillion over the last six years. That debt has accumulated largely because of Treasury neglect and bad policy. The Treasury continues to talk about having low interest rates and an inflation target of 2%, but as we now know, it consistently allows inflation to be above 2%, with the most recent figure being 3.5%. That erodes the value of people’s pensions. Under successive Governments, the Treasury has behaved appallingly on the Equitable Life pensioners. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on securing this debate and introducing it so well. He asked four pertinent questions—nice, easy, simple questions—and I hope that the Minister will answer each of them affirmatively in his response. My interest in this subject goes back many years, not only because my constituents were badly affected by the collapse of Equitable Life, but because I was a shadow Treasury Minister when the Treasury set up Lord Penrose’s inquiry into the scandal. That inquiry is another example of the Treasury delaying the process to try to kick the can down the road. Although the inquiry was initiated in 2001 and Lord Penrose reported to the relevant Treasury Minister at the time, Ruth Kelly, in December 2003, it was three or four months before the Treasury deigned to publish his report, and another four years after that before the publication of the ombudsman’s report. In setting up the inquiry, the Treasury deliberately prevented Penrose from finding issues of maladministration. The Treasury has been complicit in denying the victims of regulatory failure the compensation to which they should have been, and still are, entitled. Successive Governments are responsible for allowing this appalling saga to continue. Today, the Minister has the opportunity to change that and restore public confidence in the Government, the blob and the way in which such things are administered. Earlier I asked the question: who regulates the regulators? If a regulator is in place and that regulator falls down on his responsibilities, people expect that there will be some redress, but that does not seem to be accepted at the highest levels in Government, so I hope that that can change. This issue is not going to go away. That is a tribute to the persistence of parliamentary colleagues, the EMAG campaigners and our constituents, who are behind all this and who are saying, “What has happened to this extra money? Why can’t we have it paid out to us?” I said at the beginning that in the context of where we are with the national debt, this is very small beer, but it is not the money so much as the principle that is important, and I think that the principle is overridingly in favour of paying out what is due to these people, who were victims of Government maladministration.

    Hansard source